The challenge of academic-community partnerships: Analyzing divergent perspectives Linda Ruiz, Lab Manager, Family, Work, Community and Culture Research Group, American University [lindadruiz@gmail.com]
Conference track: Community partnerships and outcomes
Format: Poster presentation
Summary Despite the de facto geographic integration of academic institutions in communities, cultural and social integration may be much more difficult to establish. In recent years, universities have been making an increased effort to reconnect with their respective communities in order to renew their civic and social commitments. To these ends, academicians are more frequently developing collaborations and partnerships with local community-based organizations (CBOs) to begin to bridge the gap between academic theory and social change. For universities these partnerships serve as a means to build relationships with the surrounding community, improve university image, increase funding, and aid in the recruitment and retention of students (Holland & Gelmon, 1998). For community organizations, such partnerships create opportunities to improve the organization, increase visibility, recruit student-volunteers/staff, and improve chances for receiving and/or maintaining funding. Logically, one would assume that CBOs and researchers would always jump at the chance to work with one another, but this is not necessarily the case. Nyden and Wiewel (1992) describe in detail the standing “love-hate affair” between researchers and community practitioners. In practice successful and enduring partnerships are challenging and all too rare.
Thornton and Jaeger (2008) posit that disparate perspectives between community partners relate to differences in organizational culture. In its traditional usage, the word “culture” denotes the shared beliefs, values, and assumptions of a group of people. In referring to an organizational culture, Thornton and Jaeger make the case that the context in which an organization functions produces a culture and, of particular importance here, an intellectual framework among its members, which is distinct from that of organizations in other contexts.
Utilizing a mixed methods approach, stakeholders in various academic-community partnerships in the Washington, DC area were approached to participate in individual semi-structured interviews and surveys. Much of the current literature takes a uni-lateral approach to the study of partnerships. The research presented here engages with stakeholders on both the academic and community side of individual partnerships in order to identify how each partner perceives and prioritizes key components of that partnership. The guiding research questions focused on partnership goals, individual role perceptions, envisioning an ideal partnership, and an individual partnership assessment. The eventual goal of this research is to consider each dyad individually to determine if there is any link between the amount of agreement between partners regarding their conceptualization of the partnership and their ratings of satisfaction/effectiveness.
References Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Paul, W., Marsh, M., & Kramer, S. J. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418–431.
Benson, L., Harkavy, I., & Puckett, J. (2000). An implementation revolution as a strategy for fulfilling the democratic promise of university-community partnerships: Penn-West Philadelphia as an experiment in progress. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 24–45. doi:10.1177/0899764000291003
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2002). Campus-community partnerships: The terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503–516.
Holland, B. (2005). Reflections on community-campus partnerships: What has been learned? What are the next challenges? In P. Pasque, R. Smerek, B. Dwyer, N. Bowman, & B. Malloy (Eds.), Higher education collaboratives for community engagement and improvement (pp. 10–17). Ann Arbor, MI: National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good.
Holland, B., & Gelmon, S. (1998). The state of the engaged campus: What have we learned about building and sustaining university-community partnerships? AAHE Bulletin, October, 3–6
Nyden, P., & Wiewel, W. (1992). Collaborative research: Harnessing the tensions between researcher and practitioner. The American Sociologist, 23(4), 43–55.
Roussos, S. T., & Fawcett, S. B. (2000). A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. The Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 369–402.
Russell, B. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. London, UK: SAGE.
Sandy, M., & Holland, B. A. (2006). Different worlds and common ground: Community partner perspectives on campus-community partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(1), 30–43.
Thornton, C. H., & Jaeger, A. J. (2008). The role of culture in institutional and individual approaches to civic responsibility at research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(2), 160–182.
Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2–21.
Torres, J., & Schaffer, J. (2000). Benchmarks for campus/community partnerships. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.
Wolff, M., & Maurana, C. A. (2001). Building effective community-academic partnerships to improve health: A qualitative study of perspectives from communities. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 76(2), 166–72.
To access materials from this session please click on the file link(s) below:
Linda Ruiz, Lab Manager, Family, Work, Community and Culture Research Group, American University [lindadruiz@gmail.com]
Keywords: Organizational culture, disparate perspectives, mixed methods, semi-structured interviews, surveys
Conference track: Community partnerships and outcomes
Format: Poster presentation
Summary
Despite the de facto geographic integration of academic institutions in communities, cultural and social integration may be much more difficult to establish. In recent years, universities have been making an increased effort to reconnect with their respective communities in order to renew their civic and social commitments. To these ends, academicians are more frequently developing collaborations and partnerships with local community-based organizations (CBOs) to begin to bridge the gap between academic theory and social change. For universities these partnerships serve as a means to build relationships with the surrounding community, improve university image, increase funding, and aid in the recruitment and retention of students (Holland & Gelmon, 1998). For community organizations, such partnerships create opportunities to improve the organization, increase visibility, recruit student-volunteers/staff, and improve chances for receiving and/or maintaining funding. Logically, one would assume that CBOs and researchers would always jump at the chance to work with one another, but this is not necessarily the case. Nyden and Wiewel (1992) describe in detail the standing “love-hate affair” between researchers and community practitioners. In practice successful and enduring partnerships are challenging and all too rare.
Thornton and Jaeger (2008) posit that disparate perspectives between community partners relate to differences in organizational culture. In its traditional usage, the word “culture” denotes the shared beliefs, values, and assumptions of a group of people. In referring to an organizational culture, Thornton and Jaeger make the case that the context in which an organization functions produces a culture and, of particular importance here, an intellectual framework among its members, which is distinct from that of organizations in other contexts.
Utilizing a mixed methods approach, stakeholders in various academic-community partnerships in the Washington, DC area were approached to participate in individual semi-structured interviews and surveys. Much of the current literature takes a uni-lateral approach to the study of partnerships. The research presented here engages with stakeholders on both the academic and community side of individual partnerships in order to identify how each partner perceives and prioritizes key components of that partnership. The guiding research questions focused on partnership goals, individual role perceptions, envisioning an ideal partnership, and an individual partnership assessment. The eventual goal of this research is to consider each dyad individually to determine if there is any link between the amount of agreement between partners regarding their conceptualization of the partnership and their ratings of satisfaction/effectiveness.
References
Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Paul, W., Marsh, M., & Kramer, S. J. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418–431.
Benson, L., Harkavy, I., & Puckett, J. (2000). An implementation revolution as a strategy for fulfilling the democratic promise of university-community partnerships: Penn-West Philadelphia as an experiment in progress. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 24–45. doi:10.1177/0899764000291003
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2002). Campus-community partnerships: The terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503–516.
Holland, B. (2005). Reflections on community-campus partnerships: What has been learned? What are the next challenges? In P. Pasque, R. Smerek, B. Dwyer, N. Bowman, & B. Malloy (Eds.), Higher education collaboratives for community engagement and improvement (pp. 10–17). Ann Arbor, MI: National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good.
Holland, B., & Gelmon, S. (1998). The state of the engaged campus: What have we learned about building and sustaining university-community partnerships? AAHE Bulletin, October, 3–6
Lacey, A., & Luff, D. (2001). Trent focus for research and development in primary health care: An introduction to qualitative analysis. Retrieved from http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~wainer/cursos/2s2009/Qualitative%20Data%20Analysis.pdf
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1999). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Nyden, P., & Wiewel, W. (1992). Collaborative research: Harnessing the tensions between researcher and practitioner. The American Sociologist, 23(4), 43–55.
Roussos, S. T., & Fawcett, S. B. (2000). A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. The Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 369–402.
Russell, B. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. London, UK: SAGE.
Sandy, M., & Holland, B. A. (2006). Different worlds and common ground: Community partner perspectives on campus-community partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(1), 30–43.
Thornton, C. H., & Jaeger, A. J. (2008). The role of culture in institutional and individual approaches to civic responsibility at research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(2), 160–182.
Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2–21.
Torres, J., & Schaffer, J. (2000). Benchmarks for campus/community partnerships. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.
Wolff, M., & Maurana, C. A. (2001). Building effective community-academic partnerships to improve health: A qualitative study of perspectives from communities. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 76(2), 166–72.
To access materials from this session please click on the file link(s) below: